http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/03/19/a-thought-on-the-future-of-photography/

A fellow PDNer emailed this to me. I see Debra Weiss #46 posted. Interested to hear what you all think of this?

I have several posts on my blog about this issue, and the most recent podcast is also closely related. The issue has also been discussed on EP.

As I have said before, I think this idea has merit--as a marketing tool. It is vital to note that the usage in question is extremely limited--analogous to giving a print in the past (remember--a print could always be converted to "usable" form and exploited--if the person so desired and in spite of the laws against it, just like digital images).

I give away my product (which is also intellectual property--just like photography) all the time--in a limited way. It has built my business and continues to today. I continue to believe that open is better than closed (and limited open is still better than closed)--that treating people with respect, not like criminals, should be the default.

All the best--
Leslie

The problem with the article, A Thought on the Future of Photography, is that it ends up comparing apples and oranges; photography to other products and services.

Comparing photography to music (in terms of a marketing model) is very misleading. Music is consumed on a personal level and has been since records have been available. People have been able to purchase individual songs (remember 45's) for a long time. Photographs are usually used to decorate a person's or business's public space (i.e. website, print ad). Since most people want a unique public space, this limits the market for images. A musician can sell millions of songs for personal listening; a photographer, with luck, might sell a few thousand copies of an image. Photography cannot be sold the same way music is sold since the photographer will not be able to make enough to stay in business.

The example of Craigslist is a poor choice. Craigslist is successful at lowering the cost of classified advertising by using the lower cost of the web versus conventional newspaper ads. Newspapers are costly to produce; you have to use huge printing presses then distribute that mass of newsprint to individual readers. This is expensive. You also have to look at what has been lost in Craigslist; there are many nuisance and some outright fraudulent ads on Craigslist; ads that would never appear in a newspaper. These ads represent a cost in time wasted, missed opportunities and fraud. Advertising is cheaper in the sense that your direct, out-of-pocket expenses are less but both buyer and seller incur other expenses that might end up being greater than any savings.

Regarding the software industry, software can be developed and given away. The way this is done is to charge for packaging the software, charge for customizing the software and charge for support. The free software movement allows programmers to participate in a large project and reap the benefits. It encourages innovation and building on the work of others. Read about Free Software.

Free will not work for photography.

I'm not sure what printed classifieds you have read in the past, but fraudulent ads are not new to craigslist. These ads have been a part of society for as long as classified ads have existed.

The very first classified ad was probably a legit ad, like a horse for sale. The second ad was probably for some miracle tonic that could magically make horses run faster, longer, stronger...

Things in every aspect of our lives are changing more quickly than ever. What the photography industry will look like in ten years is anyone's guess, but it will be different.

It is hard to compare photography to music, but it's done because it's the biggest example of a (arguably)successful transformation of an industry for the "new" economy. In the past individuals bought photography to hang on their walls, and had limited space, and changed out their art infrequently.

That, was in large part, however, the past. What will the future look like? I don't know, but I do know that by far the majority of the photography I look at now is on line, not on walls or in magazines. How do we profit from that? That's the question. Do we try to apply an old business model that we continually apply the paddles to in an attempt to keep it alive, or do we come up with something new, that doesn't require such a fight to promote?

In large part the advertising industry did not want to embrace online advertising, but it's now where everyone wants and needs to be. It doesn't mean that the old print ad is dead, but it's not the only way of doing things.

When I first started using Google Adwords, I had to set a maximum per day allowance of around $3 to get top placement for my key phrases. I just got an email from Google suggesting that I need to up my daily allowance to $40 in order to even show up more than 20% of the time. That's not even for the top spot anymore...it's just to show up at all.

What's my point? This form of advertising went from cheap, outsider advertising, to expensive mainstream, huge revenue generating form of advertising in less than 5 years.

What's next for photography, music, advertising? I don't know, but I'm not going to wholesale write any ideas off. If we want to keep photography alive and well as a career option, we've got to be creative.

I remember something very similar when I started college in 1994. The difference was that article theorized that graphic designers would be the next rock stars. With a few exceptions, that just never really happened. Today, even the next rock stars are not the next rock stars.

Getting your name out there is important. The other emerging factor is letting people know how you would be like to work with on projects. There is becoming less importance on the images, despite those results still need to be compelling, and more reliance on the experience (moments, not knowledge) of working together with other creatives.

Christopher Anderson of Wired has it all horribly wrong. Google is free for the end user, but generates income from advertising revenues. There is no way to translate that to photographers, unless he expects us to have banner ad space for sale on our business website . . . no F*(%ing way!

Viewing our images on-line without charge is pretty much the normal modus operandi for most photographers. I have seen some photographers who make available desktop wallpaper downloads, or even iPod, iPhone, or mobile phone wallpaper. I have yet to hear of that directly or indirectly leading to more work or connections.

Furthermore, I am getting tired of reading about NIN and Radiohead making free downloads as being a great sales tool. The reality is that these are established bands with a fan base. Some fans will download, and a percentage of them will buy the actual CD later . . . usually because they like the artwork on the CD. If a beginning band tried the same thing, it will simply not be enough to generate income. Last time I checked, instruments, microphones, recording set-ups, mastering, and CD production all took time and money; even free resources like MySpace and UBER take time to set-up. Take a look through lesser bands on MySpace, and you get a good idea of small fan bases; then think how many CDs most of them might sell directly. Marketing models for established professionals are rarely scalable to emerging professionals.

The road to success is not traveled by willingly scraping the bottom, or cruising through the ditches. Being memorable, being a great personality, and getting your name out are better approaches; and I don't think you have to give away your work to achieve that.